POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

I've seen a lot of threads on the towers being discussed by SanderO on this forum. Lately WTC7 has been discussed. I'm not attacking this person, just his arguments.

First, what exactly did the NIST Report claim regarding WTC7? This is crucial as the NIST Report is the official report on what did and didn't happen to this building. End of story.

Any theorizing or speculation which isn't addressed in what the NIST Report contains is irrelevant.Any speculation which may exaggerated claims made in the NIST Report is actually a defense of this arrogant rag.

Any other approach to this report is no different to the Stutt/Legge approach to the Pentagon. None of what they claim (apart from being proven erroneous on many levels) has ever benn verified nor is it part of the official narrative. It is irrelevant.

Let's see what the NIST FAQ page claims in light of many questions raised by the report and compare what SanderO claims.

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

QUOTE

Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.

These two videos address NIST's exaggeration and dishonesty regarding these claims (among others)

From NIST again, differentiating between the collapses of the towers and WTC7 (again emphasizing that fire was the cause of collapse.

QUOTE

WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.

QUOTE

Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

SanderO claims that "fuel oil systems" contributed (exaggeratedly) to the heat and fires in the building...

NIST says..

QUOTE

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.

SanderO claims that "structural damage" was a factor along with the fires...

NIST says...

QUOTE

Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

QUOTE

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

SanderO claims that the WTC7 substations explained the explosions heard, explained the damage seen by Barry Jennings and Hess and may also have contributed (immensely) to the fires and also the explosion filmed in the lower floors just before collapse.

NIST says...

QUOTE

Did the electrical substation next to WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?

No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.Special elements of the building's construction-namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below-also did not play a significant role in the collapse.

The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

Finally, there is no physical proof that heat caused the collapse nor were any steel samples checked for explosive/exotic explosive residue.

QUOTE

Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

So the question is SanderO, if NIST has been reduced to claiming that office fires were responsible for bringing down WTC7, why would you be making exaggerated claims that actually reinforce the report in the same vein as the Legge/Stutt OCT Mark 2 approach to the Pentagon?

If your arguments and speculation are nowhere to be seen in this report they are irrelevant.

I agree with the critics of the NIST explanation that the cause was column 79 on the 12th floor. My suspicion is that the cause was on the 6th and 7th floors where the mech floors were located.. Several of the core columns of the 70 stores above from 7 were supported on transfer trusses. The Con Ed sub station was below on the lower 5 floors.

If there was a CD it was likely on floors 6 and 7.

There is testimony that Silverstein said *pull it*. The implication is that the tower was rigged to taken down with explosives and he concurred with the decision. If this is true, when was it rigged? Why was it rigged? I don't have any answers, but I have proposed some things to think about.

The sub station might have had explosions from a high voltage spike from the tower 1 which was downstream. This would to be associated with the plane strike or some other electrical problem which caused the sub station in 7 to fail and release explosive gas and ignite fires from the fuel being pumped up from the basement to the gen sets on fors 6 and 7.

Something exploded below 8 before / as Jennings and Hess climbed down the stairs. They were doing so because the elevators has no electricity I presume and they took the emergency stairs. The explosions could also be from placed charges. Regardless, I suspect there was a well ventilated fire burning in the mech floors all day. It would not be seen as the mech area was windowless... fed by huge air grilles on the north side above the loading dock.

At 5:20 the tower began to sway a bit and then the east penthouse dropped right through the entire building... followed by the weat penthouse and the entire curtain wail. The collapse of the East and West penthouse was likely the tell tale sign that the core had collapse probably from the failure of the transfer trusses and the cantilever girders under the north row of core columns.

The core collapsed and pulled the floors inward separating them from the curtain wall which collapse as one skin from the 8th floor upward down to the ground where it then began to crush and meet resistance and the acceleration stopped.

I don't think all 81 columns were destroyed at once over 8 floors at the base of the tower as AE911T seems to claim must have happened. I do think the 6th and 7th floor *failed* and the core above it came down.

I believe what we are seeing collapse is basically only the curtain wall. The floor collapse had preceded the curtain wall by a fraction of a second as they were supported on girders framed into the core. The building was gutted or hollowed out by the collapsing core and we saw the shell come down.

So I think it's conceivable that diesel fires burning all day could have led to the transfer truss failure and then to the core above it to collapse down. I don't know if there is enough heat in the diesel fuel to do this, but I suspect that the location was the mech floor. I am not convinced that this is possible but it is worthy of consideration.

How would YOU take the tower down?

Why does any theory have to accept the NIST fairy tale? I reject that office fires could cause the tower to come down. it makes no sense. It may be possible that diesel fires burning all day might weaken the steel of the transfer trusses. What happened to the diesel fuel?

The sub station might have had explosions from a high voltage spike from the tower 1 which was downstream. This would to be associated with the plane strike or some other electrical problem which caused the sub station in 7 to fail and release explosive gas and ignite fires from the fuel being pumped up from the basement to the gen sets on fors 6 and 7.

Irrelevant speculation void of evidence and already rejected by the official narrative outlined in the OP.

Why do you want to create an OCT "subplot" when NIST has been backed into a corner claiming that "office fires" brought WTC7 down?

QUOTE (SanderO)

Something exploded below 8 before / as Jennings and Hess climbed down the stairs. They were doing so because the elevators has no electricity I presume and they took the emergency stairs. The explosions could also be from placed charges. Regardless, I suspect there was a well ventilated fire burning in the mech floors all day. It would not be seen as the mech area was windowless... fed by huge air grilles on the north side above the loading dock.

Again, speculation void of evidence.

NIST rejected their testimony claiming that they wouldn't have survived (ie, they are liars) and they also made the claim that "the sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building" while ignoring the multiple witnessed and recorded explosions throughout the day and not investigating exotic accelerants.

You're just creating an OCT subplot which is irrelevant if it's not contained in the official narrative on WTC7.

QUOTE (SanderO)

So I think it's conceivable that diesel fires burning all day could have led to the transfer truss failure and then to the core above it to collapse down. I don't know if there is enough heat in the diesel fuel to do this, but I suspect that the location was the mech floor. I am not convinced that this is possible but it is worthy of consideration.

Did you read my post??

Irrelevant speculation.

NIST claims

QUOTE

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

Why would you want to create an OCT subplot about "deisel fires" when NIST has been backed into a corner by claiming that "office fires" brought WTC7 down?

QUOTE (SanderO)

Why does any theory have to accept the NIST fairy tale? I reject that office fires could cause the tower to come down. it makes no sense. It may be possible that diesel fires burning all day might weaken the steel of the transfer trusses. What happened to the diesel fuel?

Who said that I accepted the "NIST fairy tale"?

A "fairy tale" that claims that "office fires" brought down WTC7?

A "fairy tale" that you want to "beef up" by increasing the heat source? The alleged structural damage?Denying testimonies of explosions?

As I said, an OCT subplot in the same vein as the Legge/Stutt approach to the Pentagon. Irrelevant if it's not claimed or verified by the people we are trying to investigate.

Why not concentrate on the OCT claims being addressed in the links I gave?

And just to expand on Larry Silverstein. The "pull it" statement is such a circular argument that it's simply not worth it but to simply accept the government loyalist argument that "it" referred to a "firefighting contingent/operation" is grammatically illogical.

More importantly, it's allegedly a lie depending on which of the following characters is telling the truth.

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

QUOTE

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.OSS - his decision was based on two other events that had never happened before but they weren't the only previous high rise steel structures to have caught fire. His decision was precautionary because weird shit was happening. 2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.OSS - A factor which NIST denied had any outcome on the collapse.3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. OSS - did he know this on 9/11?4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.OSS - no mention of fuel oil fires - office fires

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan NigroChief of Department FDNY (retired).

He was one of the commanders who told the firefighters on the ground not to mention the explosions?

In his interview with WeAreChange:

QUOTE

I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it. - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander on 9/11)

Then of course we know that the media was informed of the collapse/imminent collapse of WTC7 not "3 hours" before the collapse but minutes.

BBC World News Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."

Very interesting, Slice. I never knew anything about Shapiro, or the above quote, prior to reading your post.

In my opinion - it's a hunch more than anything - Silverstein's comment (to "pull it") was planned, calculated, and deliberately ambiguous. It was framed in such a way that it would attract attention from 9/11 Truth only to be debunked at a later stage. Similar to Rumsfeld and Bush's slips of the tongue regarding missiles hitting the Pentagon and explosives taking down the Twin Towers.

Having said that, I tend to agree with you. There's no wriggling out of it for Silverstein. Aside from all the other evidence that implicates him in this plot, his remarks just make him look even more like Gonzo.

Larry could ask his insurance company for a reading on a CD but there are no controlled demolitions permitted in the NYC and the insurance company would know that... and Silverstein should have known it as well.

There is so much fog here. I imagine that Silverstein was advised that the building was a write off because of the extensive fire. Who know how they could tell that the foundations were damaged. I think that sort of assessment was NOT made on 9/11. I don't know bow that would have been done under the circumstances.

On the other hand if the sub station was severely damaged as I suspect, and there were extensive fires and damage to the mech floors above the substation AND the key structural elements supporting the columns for the office floors above... even if the fires extinguished themselves... that would have been one scary building to try to rehab or take down. Maybe they did think that after 1 and 2 came down from what they believed to be fires AFTER surviving the plane impacts that 7 could likewise collapse.

It certainly hasn't been proven that office fires could destroy the twin towers and the case for office fires and 7 is even thinner.

I'm thinking NIST was covering up something about thew damage on the mech floors. Why? I think they wanted to pin it on fires and not discuss the whacked out design decision to build atop the sub station which could make the PANYNY and the engineers liable for a E&O lawsuit big time. So they came up with typical pesky office fires on a typical floor which was pure hooey.

I think that in both thw twins and 7 there was some liability on the part of the designers for their unorthodox structural design. Everyone seemed to be covering for the profession including the ASCE.. AIA and so forth..because they all had promoted how brilliant the design was... and they'd all have goo on their faces and that wouldn't look to good. So it was blame it on fires and sweep it under the rug.

Now this doesn't matter if it was a few bombs (I think it wouldn't take many) or totally out of control very hot fires... the structure were mucho vulnerable to collapsing like a house of cards ONCE conditions were met. That HAD to be hidden from the public.

In my opinion - it's a hunch more than anything - Silverstein's comment (to "pull it") was planned, calculated, and deliberately ambiguous. It was framed in such a way that it would attract attention from 9/11 Truth only to be debunked at a later stage. Similar to Rumsfeld and Bush's slips of the tongue regarding missiles hitting the Pentagon and explosives taking down the Twin Towers.

Having said that, I tend to agree with you. There's no wriggling out of it for Silverstein. Aside from all the other evidence that implicates him in this plot, his remarks just make him look even more like Gonzo.

Yeah, I think there are a lot of smoke and mirrors involved in this scenario. But, there's something suspect about this journalist (who is a fervent Bushite) openly making this claim. And the whore media turning a blind eye to it.

All I know is that the foreknowledge of its collapse has never been satisfactorily explained. And that he lied.

SanderO, I actually agree that NIST's acquiescence to the OCT may have been bought on this premise (for the ambitious underlings, brown noses and the rest who worked backwards towards a desired conclusion) but they've claimed that office fires alone brought down the structure.

They didn't use any steel samples, didn't investigate the use of exotic accelerants, lied about the shear studs, exaggerated temperatures, denied witnesses who were inside the building and out, lied about audible and visual explosions, etc.

They released a 10,000 page report and gave 3 weeks for a response. Their report contains scores of names but those people were only involved in studying subsegments.

WTC7 needs to be kept simple. Office fires. End of story. If you or others want to dissect every nut and bolt and "crack the case", you're wasting your time. I don't think we will last another ten years. So why try to complicate matters when the argument is very simple. Could office fires bring down this structure?

Not trying to bust your balls but "fuel fires", "structural damage" and the "substation" are irrelevant. It's just like those, like Stutt and Legge, who claim there are "extra seconds" on the FDR of "Flight 77". An unverified OCT friendly subplot. Irrelevant.Or those, like Sarns and apparently Gage who was "influenced" by him, who believe in "NOC impact". Irrelevant.

Is it politically incorrect to point out that Silverstein is as ugly as the sins he is guilty of?

Notice how Shapiro goes out of his way to rehearse a narrative in which controlled demolition was CONSIDERED, and then - in the next breath - explains that he personally never heard or witnessed any indication whatsoever that CD actually HAPPENED. In between, he manages to outline the MERITS of this hypothetical controlled demolition, and how it could have saved lives along with other garbage. In the meantime, he omits to explain just HOW a building could be rigged for destruction within 7 or 8 hours of the initial plane strikes, even though (presumably) he regards this as REALISTIC and ACHIEVABLE under the time constraints...otherwise, why would Silverstein be discussing this type of plan with his insurance company and/or the New York authorities?

So, Shapiro congratulates Silverstein for THINKING ABOUT the practically impossible task of rigging the building for destruction, GLOSSES OVER the fact that the lease owner psychically ANTICIPATED that the building would fall in the manner of a CD anyway, and then BERATES any 9/11 Truther who might consider this set of circumstances as rather strange.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

Even if you ignore the multiple explosion witnesses just as/before the structure collapsed..

...you still have Shapiro actually trying to say that tons of steel falling to the ground was "quiet".

There's also the matter of discussions on record in the area of "covert demolition" being discussed at the 2001 symposium of the American Chemical Society.

QUOTE

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

...

The feature of "impulse management" may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.In other words these materials, in any form that they are used, are perfect for covert demolition in which one would want to reduce the loud pops of conventional demolitions.

I do not find the column 79 failure they describe as plausible .. caused by failure of shear studs and the thermal expansion of a girder which walked off the beam seat leaving the column unbraced. Ha?? Rubbish I say.

Heat DOES weaken steel.

The theory about the collapse of bldg 7 is speculation. But it is based on features of the design and the observations of the actually collapse.

1. The core from flr 8 was supported by 3 transfer trusses which were on floors 6 & 7 2. The row of columns at the north facade were supported by cantilever girders, again on floor 6.3. The core columns above floor and the row of columns inside the north facade did not have a direct axial load path to the foundations because the Con Edison sub station was *in the way*4. WTC 7 was NOT in the least bit a conventional high rise frame. That is a false statement by NIST. It was similar in a sense to the twin towers in that it had long span column free floors... though they were not supported by light weight trusses. a *conventional* high rise frame has a grid of columns usually about 25'x25'5. Heat will affect the strength of steel making it weaker, which is why steel has fire protection applied to it... to provide a period of time to fight the fires and for occupants to escape.6. The con ed sub station at the bottom of WTC 7 went off line at 8:46 am the precise moment of the plane strike in tower 1. Here is the Con Ed Report:

"UNCLASSIFIEDCommission SensitiveThere were two substations in WTC 7 building, serving the twin towers, and onesubstation by the South Street Seaport. A total of eight 13 kW feeders were located at theWTC.

Con Ed can lose any 2 feeders, and not lose a network grid. It is very expensive to make this investment and have such a robust system. The NYSE was located in the Bowling Green network. Since all 8 feeders were lost prior to WTC South tower falling, it was possible the lights had gone out before. However, the Port Authority controlled theequipment in the towers and Con Ed did not know exactly what happened inside the towers. They did have maps of the towers and were prepared to help the Port Authority in the event they were needed."

When the sub station went down, it was likely due to high voltage spikes which cause explosions in the transformers

Exploding sub station:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkDCS8xeobgTransformer explosions"Transformer and oil-filled high voltage equipment may give rise to very strong explosions. A severe electrical fault inside the transformer may well generate pressure that the transformer casing cannot withstand, such that it ruptures. Due to the high temperature and energy released from the arc, the insulating oil will decompose and highly explosive gas mixtures will result (mainly Hydrogen and Acetylene). Upon transformer rupture, gas and oil mist will be ejected to the surrounding area, mix with air and a secondary explosion may occur. If transformers are located indoors or in subterranean stations the pressure loads can amount to more than a bar overpressure. In subterranean stations pressure waves may propagate through tunnels and corridors without weakening and pressure loads can become substantial in areas located far away from the actual explosion."

7. The mech floors above the sub station contained the aforementioned transfer trusses, cantilever girders as well as emergency generators powered by diesel from day tanks on those floors replenished from the 20,000 gallon tanks in the basement. No diesel was recovered from the 20,000 gallon tank. it leaked or burned and likely burned as it was pumped up to floors 6 & 7 where is possibly spilled and was burning as a result of the fires from the transformer explosions below in the sub station. The fires on floors 6 & 7 burned for 7 hrs... way more than the typical 2 hrs fire rating of sprayed on fire protection even if it wasn't dislodged.

8. Barry Jennings went up to the EMC on for 23 to find it empty. He and Hess then decided to abandon it as it was unmanned and they assumed that there had been a decision to leave it. The power was off as of 8:46 am. They then decided to leave but the elevators were not working and took the stairs. When they reached just above floor 8 they witnessed explosions below them. The emergency stairs were located within the core. These were likely explosions from the Con Ed substation or on the mech floors 6 & 7 just below their location. This was BEFORE tower 1 collapsed at about 10:15.

9. Whatever fires there were, were un fought all day, as the water mains were destroyed at 8:46 and the sprinkler system could not pump water up into the building's pressurized system.

10. The east penthouse was the first visible sign (to the naked eye) that the tower was coming down. It can be seen to descend right down through the entire visible part of the tower (east part of the core) by the pressure pulse observed in the windows right down the tower.

11. The FDNY and the DOB most likely advised evacuation as they were aware of the fires on floors 6 and 7 which were well supplied by massive air intake grilles on the north side... burning all day cooking the transfer trusses and girders. When a building is likely to collapse they evacuate the area. They did. The tower collapsed. Good call.

10. Immediately after the east penthouse disappears, the West penthouse dropped through the building. It was above the West side of the core.

11. Before the facade descended there is evidence that the core was no longer there (9 and 10 above).

12. Observations of the curtain wall's descent.. the famous 100 feet (8 stories) at free fall show an pronounced inward bowing of the north facade (curtain wall). This was not a dipping of the center.. or the center of the curtain wall collapsing ahead of the east and west sides as that would have caused the window frames to distort and shatter the glass. The glass does not break and so the facade was bowing inward at the frame to frame connections. Inward bowing is only possible if there was noting behind the center of the facade. And it is therefore likely that the collapsing core had pulled the perimeter columns inward along with the spandrel beams and broke the relatively weak bolts and clips which held the light weight curtain wall to the frame.

13. It likely that what we see coming down (at FF for 100') was JUST the curtain wall. It likely that the curtain wall below floor 8 along with the structure below floor 8 had collapsed into the largely open Con Ed sub station... when the transfer trusses gave way and the core above dropped right on the sub station and to the ground. The curtain wall then dropped with no resistance for 100 feet... 8 stories at FF until it hit the ground and decelerated.

The above is a speculative theory.

What is the significance of this and why did NIST not come up with this explanation (assuming it was true)? I suspect it was because the design was *insane*... innovative... and in retrospect vulnerable to a global collapse if the sub station exploded... from any cause. Therefore this theory would open up the developers, the engineers, architects and builders and the DOB to a negligence lawsuit (similar for the design of the twins). High rise buildings are not supposed to collapse like a house of cards and with Bldg 7 all the money was on the integrity of the 3 transfer trusses and the 8 cantilever girders. That's kinda like putting all your eggs in one basket. It wasn't a column failure, or shear studs... it was a failure of those transfer trusses and girders. And there was nothing *typical* about them in any high rise building. In fact, this was equivalent to building a 40 story high rise on a bridge span.

NIST engaged in a cover up of the facts about the design and the likely cause of collapse to protect the designers and engineers and to bolster the fire caused by the hijacked plane damage of tower 1. The fire damage from the collapse of tower 1's falling debris had nothing to do with the collapse of building 7. The voltage spike caused by the plane strike did. But that would expose the hair brained design of the WTC.

William Rodriguez experience an explosion an instant before the plane strike below him in the sub basement of tower 1. This was also caused by the plane and the voltage spike travels at the speed of light and the sound from the plane impact took slightly over 1 second to reach him as it travels at 1180 ft/sec through air. He heard the plane a second after it struck... but the explosion at the moment of impact! There were 8 sub stations in each tower... including in the sub basement.